Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

+6
Sal
Bluebonnet
Wordslinger
Nekochan
TEOTWAWKI
2seaoat
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 7]

Nekochan

Nekochan

hallmarkgrad wrote:To wish or even approve that young ladies like this would have to go into combat is damn sure beyond my comprehension. Insanity knows no limits. I am old school. I will protect the women in my life at all costs. They damn sure dont have to fight to "Protect" me. Gee-zus.



Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 2yx16ki

Amen, Hallmark. It's just nature and instinct for a man to protect a woman. Any good, decent man, anyway. Call me sexist or whatever, but that is what I believe. A woman in combat is a distraction and a bad idea for a number of reasons.

Bluebonnet



No combat for women.

The purpose of the military should never be a social laboratory. Their mission is a tad more critical....and so is the mission of being a mother.

Guest


Guest

U.S. women have been serving in ground combat support roles for some time and many have witnessed the cruelty of war up close and personal. Israel, for one country, has women in combat positions. With the exception of Special Forces one would have to look hard to find an infantryman anymore who has to hump a large ruck any significant distance. True, several women failed the USMC infantry officers basic course - but so do men all the time. Should they be allowed in more front line combat roles? Why not - they are receiving the same pay as men who are forced to go. It's an all volunteer force after all - don't want to potentially see combat? Don't join.

Guest


Guest

I can not even believe in this thread that people would not violently oppose ANY legislation that would put women in harms way.

I maybe the only Blue collar Heavy equipment/ship builder on this forum. I have trained a few women over the years. Some were good, very very good at what they could do. But it takes a special women to put up with broken fingers, cuts from grinders and working dirty for days on end. But all them could do something I can never do. They could be a Mother and a person who brings life into this world. I admire and respect women. I am a sexist. I do not like to see women harmed or placed in danger, be it civilian or Military.............................................................................................................................................................................

Guest


Guest

hallmarkgrad wrote:[b]I can not even believe in this thread that people would not violently oppose ANY legislation that would put women in harms way.

So you are by default advocating women should not be police officers, firefighters, FBI agents, secret service agents, etc.? Women are already military carrier pilots which is arguably one of the more dangerous jobs in the military. Should they be barred from those roles too? Or should it be "All In" if a woman wants to join the military?

Let me add in edit - should women also not be allowed to teach middle and high school which seems potentially more dangerous than disarming a home made nuclear weapon?

Guest


Guest

Yes. I do not enjoy seeing women LEOs spit on called every name in the book when dealing with people. I would not enjoy seeing a woman endure what McCain when though when he was a POW. We as men have failed our women by making them work in the middle and High schools that are so dangerous. Men have adjudicated their responsibly and have taken the easy way out . .

Nekochan

Nekochan

Personally, I don't think women belong on warships. The military is different from firefighters and police. Most firefighters and police go home to their family when their shift is over. It's dangerous work but not like being deployed in a war zone.

As for firefighters and police, if a woman can pass the same tests that are required of a man, then fine. We had a thread going a couple of weeks ago about women firefighters and most of us agreed that most women are not physically capable of performing all aspects of the job of firefighter.

Sal

Sal

hallmarkgrad wrote:[b]Heck Let them go. If they want to kill and watch all the gory mess thats goes with it, more power too them. Maybe they will save some guy that dosent want to kill and endure the bull shit of combat. As long as people think combat and war is a game then everybody wants to go. In case you have not figured it out yet, it is mostly a mental game not all physical. One of the best snipers of all time was a woman. why should men have all the fun?

Was this response disingenuous, or have you had a change in thinking, or do you have multiple personalities?

Sal

Sal

I am loath to do it, but I agree with nobrain on this one.

It's an all volunteer military.

If they meet the requirements and qualifications and want to do it, it's a free country.

Guest


Guest

hallmarkgrad wrote:To wish or even approve that young ladies like this would have to go into combat is damn sure beyond my comprehension. Insanity knows no limits. I am old school. I will protect the women in my life at all costs. They damn sure dont have to fight to "Protect" me. Gee-zus.

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 2yx16ki

That perfectly illustrates why I absolutely do NOT believe that women should be in combat: most men feel a natural instinct to protect women, and that is precisely OPPOSITE the way that we need people thinking in hairy situations like that. Just from there, one's imagination can go wild with the horrific possibilities a woman's presence in combat could bring not only to herself but to her team as well.

All because most men have truly good hearts and instincts and want to protect us. Not because we're weak or less capable.

Yella

Yella

2seaoat wrote:I was listening to the radio today and heard four women in the military, most were decorated in war zones, and having purple hearts have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to overturn the current classifications by our military which restricts women in combat.

I have mixed feelings on this because I believe that government has the right to make rational basis classifications, and the courts should not be too active in second guessing government.......but how is a classification system where woman cannot be front line combat troops, yet they are daily exposed to dangerous road systems in support of combat, and are restricted from over 250 opportunities for advancement which only combat experience will allow(I do not have a link, but simply heard this being discussed on the radio this afternoon)?

My daughter went to a school with about 200 in her class. About half men and women. She could run faster than all but 10 boys in her class. She could high jump higher than all but 10 boys in her class. She could beat one on one in basketball all but 10 boys in her class. She could out weight lift more than half the boys in her class.......yet if her class went to join the military she would get through basic along with many men who could not perform at her level.......but when it came time for combat.....she would be denied, just like blacks were denied in earlier times because of something she could no more change than the color of her skin.

I think the restriction is too broad. I think however, we need to look at specific combat assignments and have a more specific restrictions by classification rather than a blanket denial of opportunity. I am still very uneasy with the courts being involved in this process, and hope that the joint chiefs can begin to evolve a policy which can stand up to constitutional challenge, but also allow rationally based classifications like how much weight a combat troop must bear, and then allow any person of any sex, race, and religion attempt to meet those rationally based classifications.

Why not? I used to run around with a woman in Texas who was tough as wire and would have made a hellava soldier.

Also consider the Native American. I believe some General said the Comanches were the most fearsome mounted enemy he had ever seen and they were basically a diminutive race compared to Caucasians.

http://warpedinblue,blogspot.com/

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Personally, I don't think women belong on warships. The military is different from firefighters and police. Most firefighters and police go home to their family when their shift is over. It's dangerous work but not like being deployed in a war zone.

As for firefighters and police, if a woman can pass the same tests that are required of a man, then fine. We had a thread going a couple of weeks ago about women firefighters and most of us agreed that most women are not physically capable of performing all aspects of the job of firefighter.

I agree with above and was a part of the conversation Neko referenced above. If memory serves, I first suggested that women should not be allowed to fight fire unless they're able to pass the same damn tests as men are. To me, that is the key (I am not talking about the military, here, which is very different to me.)... IF they can pass the same physical tests as the men. If not, tough shit. Find another job.

The fact is, many county fire departments across the country since the mid 80s changed the regulations... they bent the rules. Hell, they didn't even BEND the rules, they made NEW rules for women so that they could pass the physical to become firefighters because they couldn't pass the same physical as men. Should have left it as it was in my opinion, and it pisses me off because it puts men's lives in danger. I gotta ask, who the hell does this serve?? Women? Feminists? What the hell am I missing??

2seaoat



I am against a blanket denial of combat involvement by women. However, specific job classifications which deny women which are based or rational factors I think is good policy. Why can a woman in a helicopter support role die being shot down in a "non combat" position be denied the equal opportunity to be shot down in an attack helicopter fully engaged in front line combat?

We have rational based age restrictions and do not let 80 year old pilots fly commercial airlines, or 12 year old kids drive cars, and these classifications pass constitutional muster.......my problem is that I do not know how a blanket denial of combat roles is a rational basis classification system. I think the military needs to be more specific, and I believe woman should be given opportunities in an all volunteer military to serve some combat roles which they can meet rationally based criteria for the job description.

However, I do not like activist courts second guessing government decisions of elected officials, and I certainly do not like activist courts second guessing our military, and hope that they will simply give instructions to the military to come back to court with a rational based classification system which allows volunteers to have equal opportunity where qualified to meet the criteria of a position.

Hallmark......I would neither like to see my son or daughter in a combat zone.....at risk, but if both had volunteered, and chose to serve their country.....I sure as hell would not be second guessing my daughter's choices if she was qualified, and met the criteria and job specifications. Paternalistic attitudes toward women are patronizing and offensive, and this whole concept of motherhood and the weaker sex is more cultural than based in reality. You suffer macho fantasy that only strong men can be mechanics, when I can tell you that my wife can now do anything I can do, and I have worked with plenty of mechanics who did not have brute strength, and my plumber is a women who I have personally watched use clever leverage techniques, or she has asked for my help when she was not able to do something.......denying 100% of women for what is done perhaps less than 5-10% of the time in a job description is not good policy.

Guest


Guest

Maybe so. But right or wrong I have told my daughter that she was not to join the service. I have already posted that they really tired to enlist her. She has thanked me many time for helping her with the decision not to join. My son joined 101st Airbone and served for 4 years. He agreed that he should have listened to me. I am just speaking from personal experience.

Nothing Macho or heroic about being a heavy equipment mechanic.. I am just stating in my career I have never meet a woman that could full fill all the duties of the job. Maybe your wife and your Plumber lady missed their calling. Not much macho about rebuilding a set of 8V92s in the engine room of a shrimp boat. Just hard, nasty work, you dont even have to be very smart to do it. I really wish you would quit with labels.

2seaoat



I am not using labels. The business next to ours is a auto repair operation. The sole owner is now 67 years old and he has operated alone since his dad died 30 years ago. He has developed techniques which allow him to move cars around, and work on them by himself. His techniques are quite unique and brilliant in my opinion. The three years I worked in a car dealership garage in high school and college, I would often assist mechanics and I was asked to use my brute strength to torque something, but the best damn chrysler mechanic I ever met was a small diminutive man who did not have great strength, and when the same was needed he would ask for help. He died four years ago in a house fire, and was 82 and people for two counties were still bringing him chrysler products to work on at his home, and yes he was still not very strong.

My wife is now having to help me start the damn chain saw, and she gets right in their and helps me change the undercarriage of my tracked skidster. She changes all the belts on the John Deer zero turns, and even replaces bearings.....she has learned to use leverage, and our small hydraulic jacks to move springs and release tension.....my point is that when women are given the opportunity they can almost do anything a man can do, and yes the best damn mechanic I ever knew could not get a tough bolt off a car, and would ask the strong young kid to do the same, yet 95% of his job was not brute strength, and in a shop environment I have never seen someone take offense to ask for assistance.

I worked for a roller bearing company while I worked my way through college and I worked the second shift grinding OD raceways on huge 100 pound steel mill inner races. These huge bearings would move conveyors of molten steel which was turned into sheet steel products. As a grinder operator I had an overhead crane which I would hook these bearings and lift the 100 lb inner race onto the shoes of a large OD grinder, and grind one raceway to tolerance....take it out of the grinder.....gage it.....put it back in the grinder and grind the other race.....gage it....and then rack the bearing.

I was a big strong kid, so I simply started lifting the bearing without the crane. I was able to get 40% more production than the average person who could not lift a 100 lb bearing and place it in a dangerous machine with a moving grinding wheel......should that job be restricted to just strong as a bull males......or could a women do the job using the crane? Of course in certain situations there must be classifications which restrict, but unless it is life or death to lift 100 lbs.......I simply do not see why a blanket restriction makes sense.

Guest


Guest

hallmarkgrad wrote:Maybe so. But right or wrong I have told my daughter that she was not to join the service. I have already posted that they really tired to enlist her. She has thanked me many time for helping her with the decision not to join. My son joined 101st Airbone and served for 4 years. He agreed that he should have listened to me. I am just speaking from personal experience.

Nothing Macho or heroic about being a heavy equipment mechanic.. I am just stating in my career I have never meet a woman that could full fill all the duties of the job. Maybe your wife and your Plumber lady missed their calling. Not much macho about rebuilding a set of 8V92s in the engine room of a shrimp boat. Just hard, nasty work, you dont even have to be very smart to do it. I really wish you would quit with labels.

We can talk to our kids about them not joining the military until we are blue in the face, but once they reach the age of 18, in reality there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Guest


Guest

hallmarkgrad wrote:Maybe so. But right or wrong I have told my daughter that she was not to join the service. I have already posted that they really tired to enlist her. She has thanked me many time for helping her with the decision not to join. My son joined 101st Airbone and served for 4 years. He agreed that he should have listened to me. I am just speaking from personal experience.

Nothing Macho or heroic about being a heavy equipment mechanic.. I am just stating in my career I have never meet a woman that could full fill all the duties of the job. Maybe your wife and your Plumber lady missed their calling. Not much macho about rebuilding a set of 8V92s in the engine room of a shrimp boat. Just hard, nasty work, you dont even have to be very smart to do it. I really wish you would quit with labels.

HG: You missed a discussion we had a week ago or so in the Politics section that I wish you would have been a part of, as it speaks directly to your point above. When I was a mechanic building wind turbines I was on a crew where part of our job was to torque 486 44M bolts to... I don't remember how many Nm anymore... it felt like a gajillion to me. The torque wrench was 4-ft long and the operation required an overhead set up, to grip the wrench handle, then sort of do a quick pull-up on the wrench, pulling your feet up off the ground and drop your weight to get the wrench to click. It was not possible to use a "cheater" (a pipe-extender) because of safety rules. I was the only girl on the shop floor among about 250 men (this was before GE bought us), but all the guys coached and helped me, and truly wanted me to succeed.

After trying for weeks, I finally -- very reluctantly -- resolved that I was simply too small and not strong enough to perform this one operation, and requested to be put on a crew where I could perform all the same work that the guys could if someone would switch with me, which happened a lot and was not an issue. (Note that I did pass the very same physicals, mechanical, hydraulic tests as the men did to get the job. Just drew the lucky straw of being the first girl, and gladly, was treated like one of the guys and not like an alien invader into their space or something.)

I was pretty upset for a long time about my inability to fulfill that part of my job, but I got over it. I've told many people during my life that we're all intelligent in different ways, all have our own areas of expertise varying from different athletics, mechanics, forestry, academics, teaching, outdoors,... everything under the sun. And none more important than the other. I had to be reminded of my own words in order to accept that brute strength is not and never will be one of my areas of expertise, but I have plenty of others.

They now use a Hytorc for that operation so it is no longer an issue of brute strength and size for women who work in the shop (not to mention it is better for everyone's safety), and I learned that I was put on that crew (which was physically the toughest in the shop at the time) as soon as I was hired to test my mettle. While in the end I could not perform the actual task, I passed the test.

Anyhow, great posts on this thread, hg. I am in full agreement with you on your posts on this subject.

Guest


Guest

You can tell them you strongly disapprove. But then then if they do it is their dime. If I was younger and my wife wanted to join the service, I would divorce her in a New York second. But you see, I am a sexist, Calvinistic person. - LOL Oh Yea but I am a Macho guy with a inferiority complex....so that should explain it.....

Guest


Guest

This thread has wandered off course. I have no trouble with women being mechanics if they choose to. I have personally trained a few. My issue is women in Combat. To me this is just the Camels nose under the tent. So we say it is ok for women to fight on the front lines. Then in a few years maybe more, the volunteer Army dries up. It has happened before. So now we draft women and let them fight right beside the men? Bull shit!! Cant Happen? How many Bull shit laws do we have now that were not supposed to be really laws. Remember Seat Belts? I am just saying it is a probability. My Girls will not take that chance. And yes I siad "My" I have sworen to protect and take care of them. And I will, no matter what....

Nekochan

Nekochan

Civilian jobs that have physically stringent requirements are still not the same as combat. The conditions are different.

Guest


Guest

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNrrGfbTmeUUYJzSayiKBuEieq0Mj6AvxceFGkQjuwdfyBMSkC

Demanding equal rights and refusing to accept equal responsibility is hypocritical.

Women shouldn't complain about being unable to achieve if they are going to install their own...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAYicpU8Dg

Smile

Guest


Guest

hallmarkgrad wrote:To wish or even approve that young ladies like this would have to go into combat is damn sure beyond my comprehension. Insanity knows no limits. I am old school. I will protect the women in my life at all costs. They damn sure dont have to fight to "Protect" me. Gee-zus.



Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 2yx16ki

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVWWDtWq5PcKghA7JnqNdnRigM_-WennqjSA7QvXmdfbWxmqYC4PvqRCbdsw

Yes. Demanding the young man apply for selective service and go to war if there is a draft then have him come back in a body bag or maimed is much more civilized. After all war never takes the lives of women and children.

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

Smile

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I am against a blanket denial of combat involvement by women. However, specific job classifications which deny women which are based or rational factors I think is good policy. Why can a woman in a helicopter support role die being shot down in a "non combat" position be denied the equal opportunity to be shot down in an attack helicopter fully engaged in front line combat?

We have rational based age restrictions and do not let 80 year old pilots fly commercial airlines, or 12 year old kids drive cars, and these classifications pass constitutional muster.......my problem is that I do not know how a blanket denial of combat roles is a rational basis classification system. I think the military needs to be more specific, and I believe woman should be given opportunities in an all volunteer military to serve some combat roles which they can meet rationally based criteria for the job description.

However, I do not like activist courts second guessing government decisions of elected officials, and I certainly do not like activist courts second guessing our military, and hope that they will simply give instructions to the military to come back to court with a rational based classification system which allows volunteers to have equal opportunity where qualified to meet the criteria of a position.

Hallmark......I would neither like to see my son or daughter in a combat zone.....at risk, but if both had volunteered, and chose to serve their country.....I sure as hell would not be second guessing my daughter's choices if she was qualified, and met the criteria and job specifications. Paternalistic attitudes toward women are patronizing and offensive, and this whole concept of motherhood and the weaker sex is more cultural than based in reality. You suffer macho fantasy that only strong men can be mechanics, when I can tell you that my wife can now do anything I can do, and I have worked with plenty of mechanics who did not have brute strength, and my plumber is a women who I have personally watched use clever leverage techniques, or she has asked for my help when she was not able to do something.......denying 100% of women for what is done perhaps less than 5-10% of the time in a job description is not good policy.

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4SPiNYOkRcgHPygxGoSOtduiZ3cFbJCer4NxCSGLOSsd5qHtG

OMG!!!!!...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzGKW4ZQ2Y

Shocked



Last edited by Damaged Eagle on 12/1/2012, 6:21 am; edited 1 time in total

Markle

Markle

"Red Eye" is a late night talk show on at 3:00 am ET on Fox News. There are three regulars and usually 3 guests. I cannot remember his name but one of the frequent guests has military, combat and undercover work for the CIA credentials coming out of his ears.

His opinion is well known and, in my opinion, 100% correct. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. In his opinion unless a change in rules or regulations ENHANCES that mission, IMPROVES that capability, it has no place in the military. The military is NOT a social experiment.

A couple years back TIME magazine, the left wing defunct print publication had a cover story where it was as if they had made some earth shaking discovery. Are you ready? MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. That does NOT mean one is better than the other it means that they are DIFFERENT.

Why is it that Progressives find that impossible to comprehend?

Guest


Guest

Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat - Page 2 9k=

Now I'm being called a progressive liberal!

******SHOCKED CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzGKW4ZQ2Y

Shocked

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum